Report 1317
Report #1317 Skillset: Skill: Armor Org: Hartstone Status: Rejected Feb 2015 Furies' Decision: We aren't going to commit to any specific changes to armour at this time, though we will keep this report in mind when we get to Overhauling armour. In the meantime, we will look into damage typing on caster attacks to try to make sure they are not unduly hampered by armour in adition to DMP/buffs. Problem: Of all damage types, the physical types (cutting and blunt) are the most widely defended against, as physical armor is required to defend against monks and warriors. This creates a situation where characters may be defended from physical damage using two separate systems, partially bypassing the usual diminishing returns on damage resistance through the dmp system. Post-overhaul, damage resistance will be capped at 25% for each type, accessible only through certain strong guild skills or artifacts... except for blunt and cutting! After the 25% cap for damage resistance is reached, armor will protect against additional damage, punishing those with guild attacks that do physical damage (potentially even ONLY physical damage). 0 R: 0 Solution #1: Divorce armor ratings from physical damage resistance, leaving armor ratings to ONLY modify wounds. Certain types of high-end armor may add physical defense levels, using the dmp-replacement mechanics. 0 R: 0 Solution #2: Change armor so that magically sourced damage does not respect armor ratings. Certain types of high-end armor (masterplate) may still provide some physical defense against magically sourced physical damage, within the dmp-replacement mechanics. Player Comments: ---on 2/4 @ 05:09 writes: Either works. I'll voice a preference for Solution 1, then 2. ---on 2/5 @ 17:54 writes: While I wouldn't object to a change such as this, damage done by both warriors and monks will need to be reviewed if this were to be implemented. Even now, it is easy for certain monks to produce bursts of damage with no downside to them, let alone what would happen if robes/armor weren't protecting from physical damage either... the balancing factor for warriors being that they do wounds instead of big chunks of damage thus allowing someone prepared to apply health to cure wounds and use sparkles/scroll to keep their vitals up. Solution 2 is the one I'd lean more towards. ---on 2/5 @ 18:51 writes: Solution 2 would preserve current physical combat damage. This means that a potential "sol. 4" would be to implement solution 2, and phase in solution 1. Personally, I'd rather have a promised solution 1 with concomitant tamping down of monk damage across the board. ---on 2/11 @ 14:03 writes: Going for solution 2 as this helps all casters with blunt/cutting typing ---on 2/12 @ 16:15 writes: So does solution 1, of course. ---on 2/13 @ 10:05 writes: My concern with solution 1 is the same as Elanorwen's. If they only modify wounding, then the damage output would become even greater, hence the preference for solution 2. ---on 2/13 @ 11:08 writes: Note that it's not only monk/warrior damage that needs to be re-assessed. Casters using phyiscal damage (specifically druids, which this report is aimed at helping) also need their damage to be reviewed and compared to other mage attacks, if it isn't already. For the review of monk damage, do note that monk base damage is very low (200 or so per hit, 500 or so per form) and the large bursts of damage people see are achieved through primarily wound-based multipliers. Monks do not build wounds the same way warriors do - it takes a lot more work to do so. Re-scaling the wound multipliers (they can go up to 260% according to old data) will most likely be the best way to ensure monk damage don't get too strong at lower wound levels with this new armour change. A monk who manages to build enough wounds, however, should still do a large amount of damage - it's the lower wound levels, specifically light/medium/heavy that might need to have their damage multipliers toned down. For reference, report 941 has information about monk damage multipliers. ---on 3/17 @ 04:46 writes: A final decision on this will be forthcoming, we're still discussing in the Havens.